1) a page and a half of this discussion thread is about "art" (and the difficulties in defining what that means)

2) the latest post right before mine quoted an explanation abut how knowledge, background, etc, doesn't mean anything but that the final image is the only thing that counts

I responded "out of context" by giving examples of where it is NOT the case in the "art world" that the knoweldge, background, etc doesn't mean anything.

(there is irony in there somewhere... around word number one and two)

I understand that a lot of the arguments in this part of the forum is somewhat akin to people arguing for the fun of arguing rather than to explore subjects. And given that this apparently is a discussion that several members have had many times before and are tired of listening to (according to some of the posts in the thread), maybe that's not surprising. But as Ken said a month ago, "LuLa gets new members all the time who may not have had this conversation, and having it is a different and more useful activity than reading an old thread".

Maybe I am confusing things here. If so, it's probably because I'm trying to combine a couple of different threads of input into something that makes sense. Or at least exploring whether it is possible to do so.

I'm late to the thread, but I tend to sympathise with SunnyUK's confusion here. Why do we place such a high monetary premium on so-called works of art that not even a child would bother to produce?

Unquote

The pursuit of wealth. Just as the sale of a rare bottle of wine, a house or a vintage car etc etc can be seen as profitable then a painting that someone has the hots for, that cost little to produce, can be sold for millions.

So I guess as someone who don't "get" for instance Mark Rothko I must be an un-educated simpleton? Hmmmmm

If the shoe fits...

Just kidding. But in all seriousness, "getting" and "liking" are two different things. You may get it, but still not like it, and that is ok. You may like it, even if you do not get it (see the movie "The Object of Beauty" for instance). Getting it implies education, liking it doesn't.

Not liking it and not getting it, and then proclaiming it worthless because of that, is a sign of cultural primitivism, in my humble opinion.

Just kidding. But in all seriousness, "getting" and "liking" are two different things. You may get it, but still not like it, and that is ok. You may like it, even if you do not get it (see the movie "The Object of Beauty" for instance). Getting it implies education, liking it doesn't.

Not liking it and not getting it, and then proclaiming it worthless because of that, is a sign of cultural primitivism, in my humble opinion.

Just kidding. But in all seriousness, "getting" and "liking" are two different things. You may get it, but still not like it, and that is ok. You may like it, even if you do not get it (see the movie "The Object of Beauty" for instance). Getting it implies education, liking it doesn't.

Not liking it and not getting it, and then proclaiming it worthless because of that, is a sign of cultural primitivism, in my humble opinion.

Do you think it would be fair to say that photography is what's in front of the camera, and art is what's behind it? Sometimes the two are the same, and sometimes they are very different.

Jim, that is a very interesting observation. I think I like it and agree with it. Especially if you consider the dichotomy between representing/documenting reality and interpreting it. I often claim that there is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art.

Fortunately for me I have never tried to be an artist. Photography is both my employment and my passion and I quite possibly have produced the odd picture that could be considered art. But to me it is about capturing my reality and in not having to worry about concepts like "is it art", frees me up to just be a photographer.

I often claim that there is a profound difference between artists using photography as a medium, and photographers striving to create art.

I am wondering exactly what you think that profound difference is - prompted by the fact that so many people strongly agree with your statement, which makes me feel bad about my incomprehension.

I assume you mean something around representation and interpretation, with artists being broadly in the camp of interpretation and photographers in that of representation. But then, I manage to confuse myself. I am not sure whether you think that "photographer" and "artist" are mutually exclusive categories. I assume that when you talk about artists using photography as a medium you don't mean in preparation for drawings or paintings (very common, one of art's little secrets) - or do you? And I am not sure whether what you mean by "photographers striving to create art" is any different from what you would mean if you had written "photographers striving to take really good photographs".

I guess my reservations centre around my view of the relationship between representation and interpretation. I would argue that you pretty much never find one without the other, because choosing what to represent is an act of interpretation and in order to interpret, you need to interpret something which usually means representing it to your viewer. So I would say there is a continuum, rather than a "profound difference". Of course, sometimes one or the other is dominant. Maybe you are saying that if you have a camera in your hand, you should call yourself a photographer if representation is the dominant partner and an artist if you lean to the side of interpretation. From which it would seem to follow that you might be an artist in the morning and a photographer in the afternoon.